Dinosaurs Have Skyscrapers and Cellphones? Maybe.

page: 11
33
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 08:41 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 




posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 08:59 PM
link   
reply to post by bottleslingguy
 



if anybody cares to know about the skull there is plenty out there for them to educate themselves with. as far as your argument goes you haven't a clue. take for example the brain. do you think it's possible to laser scan the inside of the cranium and model the surface of the brain that sat in there?

There was no brain to examine. The void inside of the skull tells us virtually nothing about the anatomy of the brain. Look up phrenology if you want to see the sort of pseudoscience you are leading into.

And here is a statement that I was leading up to. I notice how you were not able to find this obvious information.

One interesting case involving a person with past hydrocephalus was a 44-year-old French man, whose brain had been reduced to little more than a thin sheet of actual brain tissue, due to the buildup of cerebrospinal fluid in his head.



I'm wasting my and any dinosaur's time going round and round with you.

I think it is possible for me to break through your closed minded approach to this issue and loosen the hook you've so deeply swallowed.

I need to remind you of the false claim of symmetry which you fell for. You also have fallen for the FOXP2 gene claim. Just like the bigfoot DNA story you are accepting this tale without any evidence being supplied. The bigfoot DNA evidence was pubished in a journal owned by whom? The FOXP2 gene report is where? You also have fallen for the claims of the void inside of the skull being indicative of the brain inside the skull.


big problem with your idea is that it didn't suffer from hydrocephali. normal sutures+symmetrical thickness = not hydrocephali

There you go again with the symmetry nonsense after I showed 2 skulls that were symmetric. Open the mind. Stop the closed minded belief in Pye.



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 09:08 PM
link   
reply to post by bottleslingguy
 



you mean the ones from wackipedia?
if you knew this subject you'd know about the skeleton. there's plenty of evidence to go on with just what we have. I mean what the hell, how much do we know about Denisovas by just one finger bone? it's all about the dna and that's coming and once it does you guys will finally go away. I hope not though I love proving you types wrong.

I already proved the symmetry claim to be wrong.

The DNA has already been shown to be human. Pye's claim is that DNA that has been so deteriorated that it cannot be analyzed must mean aliens. That's the sort of asinine claim only the gullible and closed minded fall for.


it's all about the dna and that's coming and once it does you guys will finally go away. I hope not though I love proving you types wrong.

You've been wrong about:
1. the symmetry claim
2. the notion that the void in the skull can be used to determine the anatomy of the brain that was inside
3. the published DNA reports being all pro-human

The cause of this problem is not thinking about the evidence and taking it all hook, line, and sinker without a thought.



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 03:40 AM
link   
reply to post by bottleslingguy
 
Bottle, I can see you are passionate about this so please keep calm

Let's say Pye against all odds provides the proof and this SC is an alien hybrid. Where does that take you?

It does not prove god exists. It tells you nothing about what people believe in. It actually adds more evidence to evolution not against it. Here is why.

If the SC was ever proven to be an alien hybrid due to the DNA results showing alien DNA (whatever that is) all you have is a one off event and a failed one off event that happened fairly recently.

We don’t see any alien DNA in the humans, NONE. So the SC will not be the hammer to smash evolution with as it is of no consequence in that respect as it proves or disproves none of the things you hope for.

I have read your posts many times and you show you are a clever guy but the amount of times you get yourself in a tizzy when confronted with what is a flimsy story about the find tells me deep down you suspect the same.

The girl’s story is frankly poorly constructed and does not stand up, The convenient story about the missing skeletons is just that and frankly a scandalous refusal by Pye to make his findings available to scientific scrutiny seals the deal for me.

The whole thing shouts fake! no one can prove different. No one but Pye, so you get angry about the skeptics. blame him not us.



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 05:32 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 05:04 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 05:14 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 06:21 PM
link   
lol I love the thread. really gives you a picture in your head!!! lol I seriously tho think its possible theres a lot we dont know



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 06:44 PM
link   
reply to post by bottleslingguy
 


The article you reference is with respect to a normal skull. As has already been pointed out with a clear situation, the void in a skull does not tell us about the soft tissues that were there, only what might have been there.

For example, you cannot determine the size of the ventricles in the brain from the skull. You cannot determine whether or not soft tissue are in place.
emedicine.medscape.com...
www.ehow.com...

The pseudoscience of phrenology was based on examining the skull as a means of analyzing the brain inside. Just as phrenology was wrong so are those claiming the skull can tell us about the brain inside.



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 06:56 PM
link   
I expect no one here is seriously suggesting that dinosaurs were as, say intelligent as modern humans? Is there scope for suggesting that they may have been more intelligent that we currently think? Yes of course. Is there any proof or serious study that would suggest otherwise? No.

Lets have some hard evidence or something that would demonstrate this idea. Comparisons with different species are irrelevant. My understanding is that when a species dominates its environment, there is no reason for further change. Dinosaurs dominated their environment for 100s of millions of years. There would be minimal reason for them to adapt beyond what they had already achieved and became masters of their world.

I know we consider skyscrapers, computers and e teas of e trappings of modern society to mean something significant, but its all relative, we have not much to compare with so naturally we assume that we live in an advanced age, more advanced than dinosaurs.

For me however, dinosaurs were more advanced than us simply by being in harmony with their environment something we still struggle to do. Dinosaurs were adapted to their environment to a far greater degree than us. Which is why they were unable to adapt to change when it came.



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 07:05 PM
link   
reply to post by WormwoodSquirm
 


There is no doubt that history erases a hell of a lot. We don't know that we are the first civilization to exist on this planet, and we don't know just how many species have achieved intelligence in some way comparable to our own.
However, we can talk a bit about what we will leave behind that others have not left.
Some of the bones we leave behind will have holes drilled in them, pins through them, clean cuts at amputation sites, etc. Some of our fossilized footprints will say Nike on them, and if we get really into gene therapy sometime down the road, it may one day be possible to see an unnatural distribution of a certain gene in our remains.



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 07:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by tluna1
reply to post by WormwoodSquirm
 


Not go their and interact due to we may change something, just a window to see what happened. Other then archeology.


To paraphrase the good teacher: who says we don't?
I can tell you that anyone asserting we don't has no idea what s/he is talking about. Even though they may appear very sure of themselves.

Those who know don't talk. Those who don't know, on the other hand, tend to be very talkative.



edit on 26-2-2013 by AdAstra because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 05:59 AM
link   
reply to post by spacedog1973
 



Lets have some hard evidence or something that would demonstrate this idea. Comparisons with different species are irrelevant. My understanding is that when a species dominates its environment, there is no reason for further change. Dinosaurs dominated their environment for 100s of millions of years. There would be minimal reason for them to adapt beyond what they had already achieved and became masters of their world.
I must note here I do not use the word intelligence as I think we have enough examples to show it does not exist in the common usage of the word.

Not sure I agree with you. 'Dinosaurs' were a large group, larger than mammals and during the time they were the dominant group many species within it emerged and became extinct. Its been a long time since I had much more than a passing interest in dinosaurs but I don’t think any species within that group dominated their environment and certainly not how mankind does.


I know we consider skyscrapers, computers and e teas of e trappings of modern society to mean something significant, but it’s all relative, we have not much to compare with so naturally we assume that we live in an advanced age, more advanced than dinosaurs.
This may be the defining difference. Our understanding is that most if not all other species need only be clever enough to survive whereas man HAS to be clever to survive and we are pretty much now at a point where we cannot survive without our tech. We have put all our eggs into one basket which is not very intelligent.


For me however, dinosaurs were more advanced than us simply by being in harmony with their environment something we still struggle to do. Dinosaurs were adapted to their environment to a far greater degree than us. Which is why they were unable to adapt to change when it came.
I see that differently. Every species will adapt and evolve to be successful within its niche and if it becomes too successful it out strips the resources available. It is limited.

So this is the limit all other animals face and it is not down to being more advanced. Man is clever and so is able to adapt other resources to enable him to survive past that point and so the damage our species can cause is not controlled by our environment, until it totally collapses. We see signs of this now yet ignore it. As I say intelligence? No signs of it being associated with man as a trait



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 02:32 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


Name?

If you don't have a name, then why are you on here?

William J Mersten is the name of the person that found it near antelope Springs, Utah.

Brad Steiger can support this.



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 03:18 PM
link   
reply to post by FreedomCommander
 



Name?

If you don't have a name, then why are you on here?

William J Mersten is the name of the person that found it near antelope Springs, Utah.

Brad Steiger can support this. /quote]
Wonderful you have the name of the person that found a stain in the rock that looks vaguely like a "shoe print." Whoopee do dah. Oddly enough it was placed in chapter 6 called Paleontological Evidence with the title "William J. Meister Discovery of Human Footprint With Trilobits in a Cambrian Formation of Western Utah"

Interesting isn't it how a stain is a sandal, or footprint, or shoe print. So her I see on page 188 what appears to be nothing more than an oval stain the rock.

The rock formation is famous as a collecting place for trilobites and the rock formation also exhibits many of these mineral stains. This is simply a case of looking long enough and you find a stain with a shape such as viewing clouds. It's called apophenia.



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 03:49 PM
link   

One and two sentence replies ("wisecracks") can kill good discussions Please be an example for our newer members and make every post matter.
ATS policy on comments that do not add to the discussion
edit on 1-3-2013 by Byrd because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 04:31 PM
link   
Intervention from aliens explains why humanity is so much more advanced.
Reptiles such as crocodiles, turtles and snakes existed for 100's of millions of years. Even since the age of the dinosaurs. Far longer than ANY mammal. They haven't progressed one bit. What other conclusion could it be?



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrueMessiah
Intervention from aliens explains why humanity is so much more advanced.
Reptiles such as crocodiles, turtles and snakes existed for 100's of millions of years. Even since the age of the dinosaurs. Far longer than ANY mammal. They haven't progressed one bit. What other conclusion could it be?
Aliens and intervention have no evidence to show anything just supporters and faith.

Modern day Crocodiles are different to the crocodiles that lived during the time dinosaurs walked on the planet. Although the changes are small they are evident all the same. Just as important is the environment they are found in has changed very little. Snakes are very different Snake

You have said several time Progressed and Advanced and that has nothing to do with what evolution explains. We are the best at being humans but we would fail completely trying to live like a croc or even a gorilla. So the conclusion is that the claims you are making show you do not understand what evolution describes at all.



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 05:26 PM
link   
There are those that continue to promote the hoax of the shoe print and the trilobite. I've seen it presented at creationist lectures. It has been written up in a book of creationist hoaxes. Meaningless. It is not what is claimed. It doe snot show stitching as the creationist claim. It does not look like a sandal print. It is a typical mineral stain found in that formation and many rock formations for that matter. This claim is in the same category as people claiming that a piece of crinoid stem is a 300My old bolt.



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 05:51 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


If you don't like that kind of logic, then why don't you go somewhere else?

I mean, do you deny that the human race is a old race? Do you deny that thousands of structures that take masterful artisans of pin-point precision to make?

To add, think that the pyramids are make with the use of slave-labor? Guess again. They were projects that were built with only ~50 people and it only took, what, 6 months of man labor total to build with their breaks of 3 months.

Deadman Secrets tell of this.

Don't like the logic? Go somewhere else.





top topics
 
33
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join